Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report

[RickBradford]

Remember that "historic" climate change agreement in Paris in 2015, almost three years ago? Political triumphalism was rife that this was a major, landmark achievement.

 

The world’s governments promised sweeping cuts in carbon emissions. Rich countries promised to help poor ones with $100 billion per year in climate assistance. Hurrah!

 

This week, in Nature Communications , comes confirmation of the effects of the "historic" agreement, as summarized by The Guardian.

Quote

 

Policies of China, Russia and Canada threaten 5C climate change, study finds

 

China, Russia and Canada’s current climate policies would drive the world above a catastrophic 5C of warming by the end of the century, according to a study that ranks the climate goals of different countries.

 

The US and Australia are only slightly behind with both pushing the global temperature rise dangerously over 4C above pre-industrial levels says the paper, while even the EU, which is usually seen as a climate leader, is on course to more than double the 1.5C that scientists say is a moderately safe level of heating.

 

This is the activist ethos at work. Three years ago, at Paris, we were "saved". Now, apparently, we are doomed again.

 

People are sick of the hyperbole, and the complete lack of perspective shown by activists in the political realm and the media who take the best efforts of scientists, and warp it into megadrama, the stuff of TV serials.

 

No wonder the world has turned off from climate catastrophism. The activists are their own worst enemy.

[kwilco]

I know that most climate deniers think the world is 6000 years old, so lets give them some perspective.

Edited November 17, 2018 by kwilco

[Nyezhov]

11 hours ago, kwilco said:

I know that most climate deniers think the world is 6000 years old, so lets give them some perspective.

Snide remarks at folks who dont see the urgency involved in alleged anthromorphic gobal warming by calling them "deniers" and implying that they are all ignorant creationists who don't believe in any science, as well as sound bite meme posters, do little to convince folks of the justness and correctness of the climate crusade, especially when coupled with recent news of a "mistake" in figures surrounding the alleged warming oceans. Has that link been posted yet?

Edited November 17, 2018 by Nyezhov

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Snide remarks at folks who dont see the urgency involved in alleged anthromorphic gobal warming by calling them "deniers" and implying that they are all ignorant creationists who don't believe in any science, as well as sound bite meme posters, do little to convince folks of the justness and correctness of the climate crusade, especially when coupled with recent news of a "mistake" in figures surrounding the alleged warming oceans. Has that link been posted yet?

You should have written "alleged mistake". It's not been confirmed by anyone outside of a few well known skeptics.

And I have yet to understand why it's unfair to call people who deny that anthropogenic global warming is for real should somehow resent being called deniers. It seems accurate. Since when is denier a pejorative term?

And not do oddly enough, you have nothing to say about evidence free rants like this:

"People are sick of the hyperbole, and the complete lack of perspective shown by activists in the political realm and the media who take the best efforts of scientists, and warp it into megadrama, the stuff of TV serials.

 

No wonder the world has turned off from climate catastrophism. The activists are their own worst enemy."

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Snide remarks at folks who dont see the urgency involved in alleged anthromorphic gobal warming by calling them "deniers" and implying that they are all ignorant creationists who don't believe in any science, as well as sound bite meme posters, do little to convince folks of the justness and correctness of the climate crusade, especially when coupled with recent news of a "mistake" in figures surrounding the alleged warming oceans. Has that link been posted yet?

It goes both ways! No worries planet earth will survive, and I got my comfy life until I die ???? No need to fight

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You should have written "alleged mistake". It's not been confirmed by anyone outside of a few well known skeptics.

 

 

No wonder the world has turned off from climate catastrophism. The activists are their own worst enemy."

Who is their own enemy? Hard to deny who is their own enemy, because people do not want to see what we do to the planet we live on, is wrong! People who have kids and grandchildren, is not willig to see we deliver our home in a  very very bad shape, and they have to deal with it! 

[RickBradford]

Quote

And I have yet to understand why it's unfair to call people who deny that anthropogenic global warming is for real should somehow resent being called deniers. It seems accurate. Since when is denier a pejorative term?

 

Since the term was originally coined, with the deliberate attempt to conflate climate "deniers" with Holocaust deniers, and thus denounce them as being morally reprehensible.

 

As Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers."

 

OK, she's just some nimrod journalist, so let's see what Al Gore has to say on the subject: "Clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin."

 

Charming.

 

Well, Gore's old hat - how about Bernie Sanders?

 

"[The climate debate] reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s - there were people - who said 'don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!"

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference." - Bill McGuire, University College London (2006) 

But wait, there's more. In fact, it's one of the Green/Left's favourite comparisons.

 

"Would the media insist on having a Holocaust-denier to balance any report about the Second Word War?"  - Caroline Lucas, U.K. Green Party MP (2007) 

 

"...the others working to derail this critical piece of legislation will be seen as the Adolph Hitlers of our day, contributing to a holocaust vastly eclipsing the horrors of World War II." - Chad Kister, Environmental Activist (2008) 

 

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist." - Charles Larson, American University (2013) 

 

"The obvious reductio ad absurdum is Holocaust deniers: Should their perspective be provided, for "balance," any time someone writes about the Holocaust?" - Chris Mooney, The Intersection (2006) 

 

"Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous."  - Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009) 

[bristolboy]

You offer absolutely no etymological proof that denier was coined with reference to the Holocaust.

 

I stopped reading after your tendentious Al Gore assertion . Nowhere does he use the word "denier" or "denial". Rather he talks about world leaders waffling and hoping the problem goes away. He attributes no malevolent agency to this "holocaust." 

 

You're just preaching to those who, like the posters on this page, offer ridiculous videos in support of their denialist position.

 

 

[RickBradford]

"Denialism, a concept that was first widely used, as far as I know, for those who claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud, is the concept I believe we should use."- Robert Manne, La Trobe University (2009) 

 

"Even so - and because of its resonance with Holocaust denial - the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming." - Peter Christoff, The Age (2007) 

 

That's about as clear an association as could be imagined. If you believe that the word "denier", as used in relation to climate, simply appeared as an independent, scientifically related term, then that says plenty about your own ability to deny overwhelming evidence.

 

Of course there's no "etymological proof"; no secret cabal sat in a room and decided on promoting the term "denier". That's not how things work.

 

Politicians, activists and journalists repeatedly invoke this phrase, and they know exactly what they're doing when they use it.

 

"At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency."- David Fiderer, The Huffington Post (2009) 

 

"These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers - like Holocaust deniers."

- Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog (2005) 
 

"Those who abjure global warming are not skeptics; they are deniers. To call them skeptics is to debase language as much as to call the Ku Klux Klan "prejudiced," Holocaust deniers "biased," or Flat-Earthers "mistaken."- James Powell, National Physical Science Consortium (2012) 

 

"Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial."- George Monbiot, The Guardian (2006) 

 

"This article begins by first naming this counter-movement "climate denial" and working through the various apparent options by specifically looking at the scholarship on Holocaust denial for insight."- Peter Jacques, University of Central Florida (2012) 

 

"There are many more traits that the climate deniers share with the creationists and Holocaust deniers and others who distort the truth."- Donald Prothero, Occidental College (2012) 

 

"It's about the climate-change "denial industry", ...we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg."- David Roberts, Grist Magazine (2006) 

 

[Hummin]

For me it is like denying smoking is not dangerous and junk food is good for you, and you continue smoking in front of your kids, in the house and in the car, and at the same time feed them with junk food. 

 

How hard can it be to understand?

[Catoni]

18 hours ago, Hummin said:

For me it is like denying smoking is not dangerous and junk food is good for you, and you continue smoking in front of your kids, in the house and in the car, and at the same time feed them with junk food. 

 

How hard can it be to understand?

55555 .....  one of the worst analogies I have heard in quite some time. 

[Scott]

Video from a questionable source has been removed along with replies.   Please use credible sources.  

 

[Hummin]

22 hours ago, Hummin said:

For me it is like denying smoking is not dangerous and junk food is good for you, and you continue smoking in front of your kids, in the house and in the car, and at the same time feed them with junk food. 

 

How hard can it be to understand?

Maybe, but you see now, the cities in europe start making car free zones, and China is pushing really hard to also make their cities greener. It will take time, but future will be brighter. Everybodu understand we need better air, or what? How many times have you heard about tv members complain about airpollution here? 

 

People die of airpullution, struggle with astma and so on. 

[Hummin]

This fake newsand science times? Huh, and we still poluting our life with cheap shit and expensive waste! Who is going to pay for making our life better and healthier? We are living in a tiny eco system bubble! And we ruin it for no common sense! Who going to pau? Your children!

[Scott]

Posts from questionable source have been removed along with reply.  

 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Hummin said:

Who going to pau? Your children!

Given that politicians have children, and presumably want them to live in a pleasant world, I'd have thought they'd be doing more than they are. However, it's possible that they don't believe in all the alarmist media stories anymore than I do. When I see politicians actually doing something about it, then I'll start to think there may be something to it.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

Maybe, but you see now, the cities in europe start making car free zones, and China is pushing really hard to also make their cities greener. It will take time, but future will be brighter. Everybodu understand we need better air, or what? How many times have you heard about tv members complain about airpollution here? 

 

People die of airpullution, struggle with astma and so on. 

People can believe in making a cleaner planet, but not believe in man made climate change.

Could start with governments giving up the "growth is good' mantra and start living within our means and recycle everything.

Would also help if governments stopped paying people to have children.

Less people = less pollution = problem solved.

Edited November 20, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[Hummin]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

People can believe in making a cleaner planet, but not believe in man made climate change.

Could start with governments giving up the "growth is good' mantra and start living within our means and recycle everything.

Would also help if governments stopped paying people to have children.

Less people = less pollution = problem solved.

Clima changes have been since the very beginning, no one doubt that! Vulcanos, asteroides, fires, and maybe some species <deleted> up in the past to? When it is to much of one specie, it will deleted up the eco system. Right now the earth had a long time stable period, and maybe we speed up things, we just do not know! 

 

Inctreased growth and total power is human! And that do not mix with depopulation. We are greedy and egoistic specie, and that is needed to survive and protect your own! There is no common sence in how we trive or drive this planet. 

[iroc4life]

On 10/9/2018 at 6:41 PM, bristolboy said:

It's bizarre. Carbon taxes were actually the idea of conservatives. But that's back before the right-of-center started conjuring absurd conspiracy theories about science. And how exactly would carbon taxes start a war? But as the effects of climate change become more marked, especially in the poorer regions of the world and begin to create mass migrations, how do you think that will affect global stability?

hmmmm, hows that crow now buddy, I hope you arent French where they are burning Paris because of Carbon Taxes!!!

[Jim1000]

I'm with Sarah Paiin on this one , she said 'you don't need to tell me about climate change , I'm from Alaska but where we disagree is whether we think we can do something about it . "

[bristolboy]

On 12/13/2018 at 4:33 PM, iroc4life said:

hmmmm, hows that crow now buddy, I hope you arent French where they are burning Paris because of Carbon Taxes!!!

They aren't in revolt because the taxes are on carbon consumption. They're in revolt because they are living hand to mouth and this is one tax too many for them. If it had been an increase in vat or income tax the result would have been the same. They aren't demonstrating becauset they disbelieve in anthropogenic climate change.

Overwhelmingly, the French accept that ACC is real.

https://www.climatescorecard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ClimateScorecardReport15.pdf

In fact in most countries the reality of it is accepted. It's basically the USA that's the outlier. And even in the USA it's the majority belief.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Jim1000 said:

I'm with Sarah Paiin on this one , she said 'you don't need to tell me about climate change , I'm from Alaska but where we disagree is whether we think we can do something about it . "

If you read the various plans to solve the "so called problem" (like the one being pushed by the new face of the Democratic-Socials, Ms Castro), it entails complete government control over the economy and a radical change in the lifestyle of regular Americans as their "betters" tell them what do do.

 

Let them Eat Cake.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

If you read the various plans to solve the "so called problem" (like the one being pushed by the new face of the Democratic-Socials, Ms Castro), it entails complete government control over the economy and a radical change in the lifestyle of regular Americans as their "betters" tell them what do do.

 

Let them Eat Cake.

Evidence? In fact, what you're saying is utterly false. The usual right wing lies. Just like they lied about environmental laws.

[RickBradford]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Evidence? In fact, what you're saying is utterly false. The usual right wing lies. Just like they lied about environmental laws.

In fact, what the poster is saying is utterly true, as any cursory examination of the evidence shows.

 

In 2015,  Christiana 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, the-then executive secretary of UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental policy was to end capitalism.

 

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

 

UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro called a few years ago for the world to be placed on a "war footing" to prevent climate-driven catastrophes on a global scale. Several commentators have stated that democracy itself is inimical to solving the "climate crisis". Only authoritarian nations can bring the correct amount of pressure to bear, they say.

 

At a more popular level, Left-wing writer and activist Naomi Klein wrote a book in 2014 called "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate", which won gobs of fawning praise and even some awards.

 

In the book, she repeatedly and explicitly calls for the destruction of the free-market capitalist model and its replacement by a system based on economic and social justice, whatever that means.

 

“So we are left with a stark choice: allow climate disruption to change everything about our world, or change pretty much everything about our economy to avoid that fate. Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war. [T]he central ideological battle of our time [is] whether we need to plan and manage our societies to reflect our goals and values, or whether that task can be left to the magic of the market.” 

 

There are dozens of similar examples of politicians, bureaucrats and activists seeking to impose their beliefs and structures on everyone else, using the mirage of climate apocalypse. You simply need to keep your eyes open in order to see it. 

[mauGR1]

12 hours ago, bristolboy said:

12 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

If you read the various plans to solve the "so called problem" (like the one being pushed by the new face of the Democratic-Socials, Ms Castro), it entails complete government control over the economy and a radical change in the lifestyle of regular Americans as their "betters" tell them what do do.

 

Let them Eat Cake.

Evidence? In fact, what you're saying is utterly false. The usual right wing lies. Just like they lied about environmental laws.

I am more socialist than the most left-wing American, and i believe that liars are ubiquitous.

I will believe governments on environmental issues when they'll stop producing and using weapons and bombs, until then, i'll regard them as hypocrites and liars.

[BritManToo]

On 11/21/2018 at 6:49 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Would also help if governments stopped paying people to have children.

Less people = less pollution = problem solved.

 

Or we could just kill all the people living in China, India, Africa and South America, then keep those continents as wildlife reserves.

 

A final solution to end climate change and save the planet.

Edited December 16, 2018 by BritManToo

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Or we could just kill all the people living in China, India, Africa and South America.

A final solution to end climate change and save the planet.

I assume you're being sarcastic, but overpopulation is obviously killing the planet, not to mention the freedom for all of us.

The paradox being, the population is growing because the general situation is good.

China was trying the 1 child policy, resulting in many families killing the female children. Horrible.

Apart from that, 1 child policies would be catastrophic for the economy.. Who would pay the pensions for the retired people ?

I think there is no solution, let's be happy and enjoy the day

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Or we could just kill all the people living in China, India, Africa and South America, then keep those continents as wildlife reserves.

 

A final solution to end climate change and save the planet.

Actually, from an environmental standpoint it would be more efficient to kill on a per capita consumption basis. America, Canada, the wealthy nations of the EU and Australia come to mind.

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, from an environmental standpoint it would be more efficient to kill on a per capita consumption basis. America, Canada, the wealthy nations of the EU and Australia come to mind.

You don't think it would be better to protect the remaining jungles and rainforests?

Not much natural habitat left in the west.

Edited December 16, 2018 by BritManToo

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Or we could just kill all the people living in China, India, Africa and South America, then keep those continents as wildlife reserves.

 

A final solution to end climate change and save the planet.

That's just silly. No one would agree to genocide, but people can be educated to have less/ no children.

I do think governments should immediately stop paying people to have children.